Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CudaText


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  11:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

CudaText

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I can't find any reliable secondary sources, both within and outside of the article, that would establish notability. Most of the secondary sources I could find are by people with unknown credentials. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  01:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I oppose deleting this as it's clearly a very active project (note the forum) with some history. I know people that use it. Okay it's no notepad++ popularity wise. I also see no gain from CudaText's side as it's open source and my adblocker kicked in only for the github link (to those that don't know GitHub is a VERY popular code hosting site and this is very normal). The article is also being kept up to date. 86.140.41.40 (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: The activity of its forum or the number of people that you know that use the software has nothing to do with whether this should be a Wikipedia article. Please read WP: N. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: Their own website, SourceForce, Github, then discussion boards. I don't see any sites reviewing this software, or any mention of it in media we'd use as a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: with no independent sources providing SIGCOV, this fails NSOFT. Owen&times;  &#9742;  10:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.